Dear John

Wartime romance beginning in the spring of 2001 (you know what's coming) and stretching up to the present, staggeringly basic and banal in its specifics, turning on a senseless withholding of information for the sole purpose of contrived misunderstanding and revealed nobility. It issues from a novel by Sparks, always a harbinger of goopy absurdity, and the chief function of Hallstrom, at one time a halfway serious filmmaker, is to pour sunlight, moonlight, and firelight over it like syrup.

Theres 2 hours I'll never get back! The uniforms in the story was filled with flaws and I'm pretty sure I also saw a mic somewhere. Of course it couldnt have a completely sad ending - no they had to hug in the end... Also John had to give the bitch who left him, while overseas, a coin collection worth millions... Title should have been Stupid John.

Montage: the movie

Tough guy with the wiggerish stride falls for spoiled suburbia queen whose boredom finds refuge within her need to create sentimentality in all the "wrong" places. Cack. I'm disappointed in this new crop of up-and-coming actors. Channing Tatum has no talent, and as long as he's restrained from any demanding roles, I'll continue to gratefully not give a shit.

An hour forty worth of constant montages mixed with Tatum and Seyfried being horrible at their job is hardly an epic romance. Hallstrom is now high on my list on directors to avoid a long with any Nicholas Sparks adaptations for that matter. As predictable as they get and even manages to have a huge cop out of an ending.

Lasse Hallström at his cheesiest with a non-charismatic lead couple that recite the dialogue as if it was a school rehearsal. Channing Tatum looks constantly stoned.

what in the simp. what is wrong with hollywood . cant they make a realistic romance instead of these simps. john ends up giving away millions and has his girl leave him while hes at war. he returns and forgives the cheating and by the end its clear he wants to be with her. wtf. also its so unrealistic how good army mail is, ill tell you now those letters arrived each 6 months late or where lost so no way they had back and forth conversations. honestly those letters probably would take a year

Trash

meh, the notebook was better

The plot is so simple yet so natural and touching. Add the beautiful array of romantic musical scores and you have a film worth viewing. My SCORING: 99-96=Great; 95-90=Very good; 89-85=Good; 84-80=So-so; 79-70=Boring; Below 70=Forget it.

ZOBACZ PATRZYMY NA TEN SAM KSIEMRZYC ?

Is it possible for all of that to exist in a movie that's more Harlequin romance than serious exploration of love found and lost? Grudgingly I'll say maybe. For there were times as I wrote this that I would have rather just summed things up with: The stoic hero gets emotionally battered and the silly heroine never learns enough to deserve him--and yet, inexplicably, he takes her back. (pluggedin.com)

Never a good idea to make a film from the dictation of letters sent to each other.

ger; [Das Leuchten der Stille]; ein soldat verliebt sich in ein Mädchen, doch der dienst für das vaterland trennt die beiden wieder - für zu lange zeit.;

This is a Nicholas Sparks movie...with a plot? A real plot? Holy fuck.

It's the cinematic equivalent of a plastic-covered couch under a "Bless This House" sampler. And that's not a bad thing, for audiences who have a high threshold for sentiment and a low one for dramatic conflict.

Two horrible (in different ways) people fall in love and blah blah blah........

Lasse Hallström has come up with a formula for the perfect movie. Too bad "perfect" for Hallström means "enormously shitty" for anybody remotely normal.

The movie is very melodramatic. It kind of works for parts, but for other parts it comes off as super cheesy. I hate modern war movies, all of the soldiers just seem really ignorant and annoying tough guys. This movie had a decent amount of that in it. Channing Tatum isn't that good, he just stands there and looks bored for most of the movie. Amanda Seyfried is hot, but that doesn't save the movie. They also have some dumb subplot with the dad which was kind of irrelevant to everything else.

84

#11#, popcorn, story, (dir Hallstrom, writer Sparks), Amanda S.

Entertaining although flat and cliche. Sad and poignant, but a relatively smart love story. Romantic, but unnecessarily suffering and not funny or interesting enough to move it into the 80s grade range.

I actually thought it was a really sweet story and that being said, the tragedy is in the direction and acting. It's beyond terrible. Channing just wondered around for a long time looking like he was on opiates and literally 30 minutes of the movie is montages. But at the same time, this isn't trying to be some revolution in film. It's an honest romance that'll make your idiot girlfriend cry and you'll get laid afterwards. Enjoy.

BORINGNESS

Maybe I should give it even less. Amanda's character is so badly-written. Channing is a very bad actor, albeit handsome if he isn't smiling that is. It's difficult to believe that the story came from the same person who wrote The Notebook, which is a very believable story. Dear John is terrible.

1

I thought it was dull dull dull. So did my wife. Perhaps if we cared about the characters it would've been better.

"As mid-winter sudsers go, you could do a lot worse than Dear John, an unassuming and mildly endearing adaptation of the Nicholas Sparks's novel of the same name." - Matthew Connolly

F*ck you John.

There were only about two events in the movie that were NOT VOICE OVERS! I think it must rank in the cheapest love movies ever made. Short Version: Dear John is the best slide show I've ever seen!

Amanda Seyfried is cute. That's the best thing I can say for this film. Honestly this film plays like a slide show with voice over. And Nicholas Sparks needs a needs to shake things up. I feel like there is no variety in his "films". I don't read the books he's writing, but all the films feel the same and feel like their getting worse every time.

Quite like love in real life: the beginning is giddy and joyful, the break-up depressing, and the afters complicated and difficult. I can't say that Dear John is a brilliant film, but it's well-made in the very safe hands of Lasse Hallstrom, and I have to at least give it credit for attempting an honest, no-holds-barred portrayal of a relationship, without the usual distractions present in such a genre.

Romantic drama about a love affair that begins between a soldier home on leave, and a college student on spring break, and is sustained in ensuing years by a continuous stream of love letters. There is something emotionally exhausted about 'Dear John'.... This isn't a love story, it's a misery story that drags on, not to a dramatic conclusion but a tepid moment.

Built from many of the same ingredients as other Nicholas Sparks tearjerkers, Dear John suffers from its cliched framework, as well as Lasse Hallstrom's curiously detached directing.

Find out more: http://zoopy.com/q/3cda

Awash in mawkish sentimentality, Dear John still will move you deeply - if you're a 12-year-old girl.

Mistakes - 1) When John is asking Savannah what to do in a scene in a park, a microphone can be seen. 2) When Savannah pours the wine during supper the glasses are around 1/4 full and when the angle changes the glasses are about 3/4 full.

Poprawne romansidlo ;-)

Oh, terribly predictable, commonplace and tender story. Despite all of these I enjoyed that movie very much.

The acting in this is Quite Bad. Sparks is the master of melodrama.